REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA
10.1.2014 - (COM(2013)0042 – C7‑0033/2013 – 2013/0023(COD)) - ***I
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Anthea McIntyre
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA
(COM(2013)0042 – C7‑0033/2013 – 2013/0023(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0042),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7‑0033/2013),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 May 2013[1],
– having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank of 28 May 2013[2],
– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0018/2014),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(1) As the single currency shared by the Member States of the euro area, the euro has become an important factor in the Union's economy and the every-day-life of its citizens. It is in the interest of the Union as a whole to oppose and pursue any activity that is likely to jeopardise the authenticity of the euro by counterfeiting. |
(1) As the single currency shared by the Member States of the euro area, the euro has become an important factor in the Union's economy and the every-day-life of its citizens. Since its introduction in 2002, counterfeiting of the euro has, however, led to financial damage of at least EUR 500 million because it is a currency continuously targeted by organised crime groups active in money forgery. It is in the interest of the Union as a whole to oppose and pursue any activity that is likely to jeopardise the authenticity of the euro by counterfeiting. |
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(2) Counterfeit money has a considerable ill-effect on society. It harms citizens and businesses that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. It is of fundamental importance to ensure trust and confidence in the authenticity of notes and coins for citizens, companies and financial institutions. |
(2) Counterfeit money has a considerable ill-effect on society. It harms citizens and businesses that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. It is of fundamental importance to ensure trust and confidence in the authenticity of notes and coins for citizens, companies and financial institutions, and equally crucial to protect citizens from counterfeiting when exercising freedom of movement, work and residence throughout the Union. |
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(3) It is essential to ensure that effective and efficient criminal law measures protect the euro and any other currency whose circulation is legally authorised in an appropriate way in all Member States. |
(3) It is essential to ensure that Member States take all necessary measures to protect the euro and any other currency whose circulation is legally authorised. Such measures should include preventive as well as enforcement measures. |
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(3a) As a significant preventive measure, the Union should abolish the use of EUR 500 banknotes as evidence shows that over 90 percent of them are being used only by organised crime . |
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(10) The protection of the euro and other currencies calls for a common definition of the offences related to the currency counterfeiting as well as for common sanction types both for natural and legal persons. In order to ensure coherence with the Geneva Convention, this Directive should provide for the same offences to be punishable as in the Convention. Therefore, the production of counterfeit notes and coins and their distribution should be a criminal offence. Important preparatory work to those offences, for example the production of counterfeiting instruments and components, should be punished independently. The common aim of those definitions of offences should be to act as a deterrent from any handling with counterfeit notes and coins, instruments and tools for counterfeiting. |
(10) The protection of the euro and other currencies calls for a common definition of the offences related to the currency counterfeiting as well as for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties both for natural and legal persons. In order to ensure coherence with the Geneva Convention, this Directive should provide for the same offences to be punishable as in the Convention. Therefore, the production of counterfeit notes and coins and their distribution should be a criminal offence. Important preparatory work to those offences, for example the production of counterfeiting instruments and components, should be punished independently. The common aim of those definitions of offences should be to act as a deterrent from any handling with counterfeit notes and coins, instruments and tools for counterfeiting. |
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(10a) It is of fundamental importance to ensure trust and confidence in the authenticity of notes and coins for citizens, companies and financial institutions. Counterfeit money causes significant pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to society, individuals and businesses in all Member States as well as in third countries. It could cause consumers concerns regarding the sufficient protection of cash and the fear of receiving counterfeit notes and coins. As a consequence, consumers may prefer other means of payment instead of cash. Counterfeit money could thus have repercussions for the system of circulation of money by different means of payment. The offences of counterfeiting are characterised by frequently having a cross-border dimension and connections with organised crime. |
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(13a) With regard to the criminal offences provided for in this Directive, intention must be a part of all the elements constituting the offences referred to in this Directive. The intentional nature of an act or omission may be inferred from objective and factual circumstances. Offences by natural persons which do not require intention are not covered by this Directive. |
Justification | |
EU criminal law should be intended as an extrema ratio and in principle cover only intentional acts or omissions. | |
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 14 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(14) The sanctions for counterfeiting offences should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive throughout the Union. |
deleted |
Justification | |
Text covered by amendment on recital 10. | |
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(16) Therefore, Member States should provide for certain minimum types and levels of sanctions. The concept of minimum penalties is currently provided for in a majority of Member States. It is consistent and appropriate to adopt this approach at Union level. |
(16) Therefore, Member States should provide for minimum levels of maximum penalties . Given the substantial disparities between Member States the danger exists that the introduction of minimum penalties for counterfeiting the euro and other currencies might lead to lack of uniformity regarding minimum penalties within one and the same national legal system.
|
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(17) The levels of the sanctions should be effective and dissuasive but should not go beyond what is proportionate to the offences. The penalty for natural persons in serious cases, that is to say, for the main offences of production and distribution of counterfeit currency involving a large amount of counterfeit notes and coins or involving particularly serious circumstances, should therefore be a minimum penalty of at least six months and a maximum penalty of at least eight years of imprisonment. |
(17) The levels of the sanctions should be effective and dissuasive but should not go beyond what is proportionate to the offences. |
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(18) The minimum penalty of six months helps to ensure that equal priority is given by law-enforcement and judicial authorities to the offences of counterfeiting of the euro and other currencies and, in turn, facilitates cross-border cooperation. It contributes to mitigating the risk of forum-shopping. Moreover, it allows that sentenced perpetrators can be surrendered with the help of a European Arrest Warrant so that the custodial sentence or detention order can be executed. |
(18) Equal priority should be given by law-enforcement and judicial authorities to the offences of counterfeiting of the euro and other currencies; This facilitates cross-border cooperation, inter alia, through the European Arrest Warrant and reduces the risk of forum-shopping. |
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Recital 19 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(19) Member States should have the possibility to impose a short term of imprisonment or to refrain from imprisonment in cases where the total nominal value of the counterfeited notes and coins is not significant or does not involve particularly serious circumstances. That value should be below EUR 5 000, that is to say ten times the highest denomination of the euro, for cases calling for a penalty other than imprisonment, and below EUR 10 000 for cases calling for imprisonment for a shorter term than six months. |
(19) Member States should have the possibility to impose a short term of imprisonment or to refrain from imprisonment in cases where the total potential or nominal value of the counterfeited notes and coins is not significant or does not involve particularly serious circumstances. |
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(22) To ensure the success of investigations and prosecution of currency counterfeiting offences, those responsible for investigating and prosecuting such offences should have access to the investigative tools used in combating organised crime or other serious crime. Such tools include, for example, the interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, the monitoring of bank accounts and other financial investigations, taking into account, inter alia, the principle of proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation. |
(22) To ensure the success of investigations and prosecution of currency counterfeiting offences, those responsible for investigating and prosecuting such offences should have access to the investigative tools used in combating organised crime or other serious crime. Such tools include, for example, the interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, the monitoring of bank accounts and other financial investigations, taking into account, inter alia, the principle of proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation, in addition to the right to the protection of personal data. |
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Recital 23 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(23) Member States should establish their jurisdiction in coherence with the Geneva Convention and the provisions on jurisdiction in other Union criminal law legislation, that is to say, for offences committed on their territory and for offences committed by their nationals. The pre-eminent role of the euro for the economy and society of the European Union as well as the specific threat to the euro as a currency of world-wide importance calls for an additional measure to protect it. Therefore, each Member State whose currency is the euro should exercise universal jurisdiction, for offences related to the euro committed outside the European Union, if either the offender is in its territory or counterfeit euros related to the offence are detected in that Member State. When exercising universal jurisdiction, Member States should respect the principle of proportionality, in particular with regard to convictions by a third country for the same conduct. |
(23) Member States should establish their jurisdiction in coherence with the Geneva Convention and the provisions on jurisdiction in other Union criminal law legislation, that is to say, for offences committed on their territory and for offences committed by their nationals, noting that offences are best dealt with by the criminal justice system of the State where they occur .The principle of ne bis in idem has to be respected, which means that no prosecutions should be brought against those who have been finally convicted or acquitted in a previous trial. |
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
1. This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of counterfeiting of the euro and other currencies. It also introduces common provisions to strengthen the fight against those offences and to improve their investigation. |
1. This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of counterfeiting of the euro and other currencies. It also introduces common provisions to strengthen the fight against those offences; to improve their investigation, and to ensure better coordination of anti-counterfeiting measures between national authorities within and outside the Eurozone. |
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
b) 'legal person' means any entity having legal personality under the applicable law, except for States or public bodies in the exercise of State authority and for public international organisations; |
b) ‘legal person’ means any entity having legal personality under the applicable law, except for States; |
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
b). the fraudulent uttering of counterfeit currency; |
b). the passing of counterfeit currency; |
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d – point i | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(i) instruments, articles, computer programs and any other means peculiarly adapted for the counterfeiting or altering of currency; or |
(i) instruments, articles, computer programs and any other means specifically adapted for the counterfeiting or altering of currency; or |
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point d – point ii | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(ii) holograms or other components of currency which serve to protect against counterfeiting. |
(ii) holograms, watermarks or other components of currency which serve to protect against counterfeiting. |
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 3 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
3. The conduct referred to in paragraph 1 includes conduct in relation to notes and coins which are not yet issued, but are designed for circulation and are of a currency which is legal tender. |
3. The conduct referred to in paragraph 1 includes conduct in relation to notes or coins which are not yet issued, but are designed for circulation and are of a currency which is legal tender. |
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 is punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. |
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the conduct referred to in Articles 3 and 4 is punishable under national law by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. |
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2. For offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of less than EUR 5 000 and not involving particularly serious circumstances, Member States may provide for a penalty other than imprisonment. |
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 4, for offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1), Member States may provide for a penalty other than imprisonment. |
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 3 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
3. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of at least EUR 5 000 shall be punishable by imprisonment with a maximum penalty of at least eight years. |
deleted |
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 4 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
4. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of at least EUR 10 000 or involving particularly serious circumstances shall be punishable by |
4. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) shall be punishable under national law by a minimum maximum penalty of eight years of imprisonment. |
|
(a) a minimum penalty of at least six months of imprisonment; |
|
|
(b) a maximum penalty of at least eight years of imprisonment. |
|
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
4a. In enforcing and executing sentences for the criminal offences provided for in this Directive, Member States shall apply the general rules and principles of national criminal law in accordance with the specific circumstances of each case. |
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
3a. Auditors who are responsible for auditing the annual accounts of legal persons shall reveal to the competent judicial authorities any proven offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of this Directive without their liability being called into question as a result of that revelation. |
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4, where |
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4, where, provided that territoriality shall be the primary determining factor: |
|
(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part within its territory; or |
(a) the offence is committed in whole or in part within its territory; or |
|
(b) the offender is one of its nationals. |
(b) the offender is one of its nationals |
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
Each Member State whose currency is the euro shall take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 committed outside the European Union, at least where they relate to the euro and where |
deleted |
|
(a) the offender is in the territory of the Member State; or |
|
|
(b) counterfeit euro notes or coins related to the offence have been detected in the Member State. |
|
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
For the purpose of prosecution of any of the offences, each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that its jurisdiction is not subordinated to the condition that the acts are a criminal offence at the place where they were committed. |
deleted |
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
3a. Member States shall refrain from bringing criminal proceedings where the offences referred to in Articles 3 and 4 have already been the subject of criminal proceedings which resulted in the final acquittal or conviction of the suspect. |
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Article 10 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
Article 10a |
|
|
Compilation of data on the number of incidents concerning counterfeit euro notes and coins |
|
|
Member States shall regularly compile reliable data on the number of incidents concerning counterfeit euro notes and coins with particular reference to criminal prosecutions initiated and successful criminal prosecutions. Such data should be made available to OLAF; |
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2. If the necessary samples of suspected counterfeit notes and coins cannot be transmitted because it is necessary to retain them as evidence in criminal proceedings in order to guarantee a fair and effective trial and the right of defence of the suspected perpetrator, the National Analysis Centre and Coin National Analysis Centre shall be given access to them without delay. |
2. If the necessary samples of suspected counterfeit notes and coins cannot be transmitted because it is necessary to retain them as evidence in criminal proceedings in order to guarantee a fair and effective trial and the right of defence of the suspected perpetrator, the National Analysis Centre and Coin National Analysis Centre shall be given access to them without delay. Immediately after the proceedings have concluded, the judicial authorities shall transmit those necessary samples of each type of suspected counterfeit note to the National Analysis Centre and each type of suspected counterfeit coin to the Coin National Analysis Centre. |
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive Article 12 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
Article 12a Eyropean Central Bank report |
|
|
The European Central Bank, in consultation with the Commission, shall, by...*, submit a report on the EUR 200 and EUR 500 banknotes. That report shall assess the extent to which the issuing of those denominations is justified in the light of the risks of counterfeiting and money laundering. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by a proposal for a decision.
____________ * OJ: Insert date: One year after the entry into force of this Directive. |
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive Article 14 – title | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
Reporting by the Commission and review |
Reporting by the Commission and review - final provisions |
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
The Commission shall, on behalf of the Union, consider the negotiation of appropriate agreements with third countries that use the euro as a currency in order to oppose and punish any activity likely to call into question the authenticity of the euro through counterfeiting and, , in order to attain the objectives of this Directive. |
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
This short report focuses on recommendations which encourage member states to tackle the criminal offence of counterfeiting in a way that they see fit. Notably, the amendment to Article 8 is designed to ensure the primacy of territoriality in establishing jurisdiction; as it is neither practical nor fair to ask member states to take responsibility for offences that occur outside their territory by one of their nationals.
According to figures by the European Central Bank, 184,000 counterfeit euro coins were removed from circulation in 2012, and 531,000 counterfeit bank notes were removed from circulation. OLAF estimate that counterfeiting of the euro has cost European business and the consumer approximately EUR 500 million since the introduction of the euro in 2002; consumers and businesses incur this direct cost as they are not be reimbursed for counterfeits.
The euro is the second most used international currency worldwide and this makes it a target for organised crime groups who specialise in the forgery of money. Europol spends a considerable amount of time and resources on seizing counterfeited euro notes and coins and dismantling illegal print shops.
The European Commission believes a harmonised approach to establishing criminal sanctions would be a useful deterrent, however a significant number of member states, believe these sanctions to be overly ambitious and contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, considering economic disparities between the Member States, the establishment of harmonised minimum penalties is likely to result in inconsistent deterrent effects across the Union and therefore prove counter productive.
OPINION of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (25.9.2013)
for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA
(COM(2013)0042 – C7‑0033/2013 – 2013/0023(COD))
Rapporteur: Pablo Zalba Bidegain
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The proposal for directive aims to modernise the current EU criminal legal framework for the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting. It replaces the existing Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 of 28 June 2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting and goes beyond the latter in particular regarding the improvement of the penalties regime, the investigative tools for serious counterfeiting offences and the obligation of transmission of suspected counterfeits to National Analysis Centres (NACs) and Coin National Analysis Centres (CNACs).
The Draftsperson welcomes this proposal, in particular as regards the harmonisation of the penalties regime. A minimum harmonisation in this area is fully justified, given that the euro as a common currency for 17 Member States has a significant role for the economic and financial integration in the EU and the trusts of the EU citizens in the currency is crucial for the financial stability. Therefore, the euro should be protected equivalently throughout the EU.
The Draftsperson suggests further amendments to the proposed legislation in the following areas:
- Publicity of convictions
In order to ensure effective and dissuasive penalties, the convictions imposed should be made public, unless such publication would seriously jeopardise ongoing official investigations.
- Proportionality of penalties
In line with the fundamental principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, national authorities should apply the penalties regime in a proportionate manner. This could be further specified in a new subparagraph of Article 5 (1).
- Scope: Unfinished counterfeit notes and coins
The concept of counterfeit notes and coins should not necessarily be limited only to finished counterfeit notes and coins, but should also cover unfinished counterfeit notes and coins which are in the process of being produced.
Such unfinished counterfeits would not have a nominal value but a potential nominal value, which should be taken into account for the determination of a proportionate penalty under Article 5 of the proposed directive. Therefore, recital 19 and Article 5 should be amended to include references to the potential nominal value in relation to unfinished counterfeits. The potential nominal value should be considered as a further criterion when applying a proportionate penalty to any offence under Article 3(1)(a) to (c) of the proposed directive.
- Scope: Euro and other currencies
In accordance with the principle of non discrimination to currencies enshrined in the Geneva Convention, Member States have to apply the same penalties regime to their domestic currency and to the foreign currencies. This could be further clarified in the proposed legislation by amending recital 19 and Article 5 to specify the application to notes or coins, which are not euro counterfeit notes and coins.
- Offences in relation to production tools and raw materials of banknotes and coins
In order to reinforce the deterrent effects of the proposed legislation, and given that the instruments for counterfeiting play a major role in this type of crimes, the criminal offences defined in Article 3(1)(d), subject to a proportionality assessment, should also be subject to the minimum and maximum penalties standards set out in Article 5(4).
- Transmission of suspected counterfeits to NACs and CNACs during judicial proceedings
Article 10 of the proposal introduces the obligation of transmission of suspected counterfeits to the NACs and CNACs established in accordance with the Regulation 1338/2001. However, in the certain circumstances, in particular during on-going judicial proceedings, the samples of suspected counterfeit notes and coins cannot be transmitted because it is necessary to retain them as evidence. In such circumstances these samples of counterfeit notes and coins should be transmitted to the NAC or CNAC without delay after the relevant proceedings have been terminated.
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 9 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(9a) Harmonisation of criminal law in the Union should contribute to the development of a common legal culture in the Union in relation to fighting crime, which would have a positive impact on mutual trust amongst the legal systems of the Member States. |
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
. |
(10a) It is of fundamental importance to ensure trust and confidence in the authenticity of notes and coins for citizens, companies and financial institutions. Counterfeit money causes significant pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to society, individuals and businesses in all Member States as well as in third countries. It could cause consumers concerns regarding the sufficient protection of cash and the fear of receiving counterfeit notes and coins. As a consequence, consumers may prefer other means of payment instead of cash. Counterfeit money could thus have repercussions for the system of circulation of money by different means of payment. The offences of counterfeiting are characterised by frequently having a cross-border dimension and connections with organised crime. |
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(16a) Every conviction imposed pursuant to this Directive should be promptly made public and include at least information on the type and nature of the offence, of the penalty and on the identity of the convicted natural or legal person, unless such publication would seriously jeopardise ongoing official investigations. |
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 19 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(19) Member States should have the possibility to impose a short term of imprisonment or to refrain from imprisonment in cases where the total nominal value of the counterfeited notes and coins is not significant or does not involve particularly serious circumstances. That value should be below EUR 5 000, that is to say ten times the highest denomination of the euro, for cases calling for a penalty other than imprisonment, and below EUR 10 000 for cases calling for imprisonment for a shorter term than six months. |
(19) Member States should have the possibility to impose a short term of imprisonment or to refrain from imprisonment in cases where the total nominal or potential nominal value of the counterfeited notes and coins is not significant or does not involve particularly serious circumstances. That value should be below EUR 5 000 or the equivalent amount in the currency of the relevant counterfeited notes and coins, that is to say ten times the highest denomination of the euro, for cases calling for a penalty other than imprisonment, and below EUR 10 000 or the equivalent amount in the currency of the relevant counterfeited notes and coins for cases calling for imprisonment for a shorter term than six months. |
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
To ensure that penalties have a dissuasive effect on the public at large, Member States shall, where appropriate, publish the criminal penalties referred to in the first subparagraph, without undue delay, including at least information on the type and nature of the crime and the identity of the persons responsible, unless such publication would seriously jeopardise the stability of financial markets. Where publication would cause disproportionate damage to the parties involved, Member States shall publish the criminal penalties on an anonymous basis. |
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
1a. In assessing the proportionality of penalties, Member States shall take into account the profits made or losses avoided by the persons held liable as well as the damage resulting from the offence to other persons and, where applicable, the damage to the functioning of markets or to the wider economy. |
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2. For offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of less than EUR 5 000 and not involving particularly serious circumstances, Member States may provide for a penalty other than imprisonment. |
2. For offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal or potential nominal value of less than EUR 5 000 or the equivalent amount in the currency of the relevant counterfeited notes and coins, and not involving particularly serious circumstances, Member States may provide for a penalty other than imprisonment. |
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 3 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
3. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of at least EUR 5 000 shall be punishable by imprisonment with a maximum penalty of at least eight years. |
3. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal or potential nominal value of at least EUR 5 000 or the equivalent amount in the currency of the relevant counterfeited notes and coins, shall be punishable by imprisonment with a maximum penalty of at least eight years. |
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 4 – introductory part | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
4. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal value of at least EUR 10 000 or involving particularly serious circumstances shall be punishable by |
4. Offences referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) involving notes and coins of a total nominal or potential nominal value of at least EUR 10 000 or the equivalent amount in the currency of the relevant counterfeited notes and coins, or involving particularly serious circumstances shall be punishable by |
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Article 5 – paragraph 4 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
4a. The penalty referred to in paragraph 4 shall also apply to the offences referred to in point (d) of Article 3(1) where such offences involve particularly serious circumstances. |
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2. If the necessary samples of suspected counterfeit notes and coins cannot be transmitted because it is necessary to retain them as evidence in criminal proceedings in order to guarantee a fair and effective trial and the right of defence of the suspected perpetrator, the National Analysis Centre and Coin National Analysis Centre shall be given access to them without delay. |
2. If the necessary samples of suspected counterfeit notes and coins cannot be transmitted because it is necessary to retain them as evidence in criminal proceedings in order to guarantee a fair and effective trial and the right of defence of the suspected perpetrator, the National Analysis Centre and Coin National Analysis Centre shall be given access to them without delay. Immediately after those proceedings have been concluded, the judicial authorities shall transmit such necessary samples of each type of suspected counterfeit note to the relevant National Analysis Centre and each type of suspected counterfeit coin to the relevant Coin National Analysis Centre. |
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Article 12 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
Article 12a |
|
|
The European Central Bank, in consultation with the Commission, shall, by [1 year after its entry into force], submit a report on the EUR 200 and EUR 500 banknotes. That report shall assess the extent to which the issuance of these denominations is justified in the light of the risks of counterfeiting and money laundering. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by a proposal for a decision. |
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Article 14 – title | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
Reporting by the Commission and review |
Reporting by the Commission and review - final provisions |
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
The Commission shall, on behalf of the Union, consider the negotiation of appropriate agreements with third countries that use the euro as a currency in order to oppose and pursue any activity likely to call into question the authenticity of the euro through counterfeiting and, more generally, in order to attain the objectives of this Directive. |
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law (replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA) |
||||
|
References |
COM(2013)0042 – C7-0033/2013 – 2013/0023(COD) |
||||
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
LIBE 12.3.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
ECON 12.3.2013 |
||||
|
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Pablo Zalba Bidegain 12.3.2013 |
||||
|
Discussed in committee |
5.9.2013 |
24.9.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
24.9.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
41 4 0 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Marino Baldini, Jean-Paul Besset, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, George Sabin Cutaş, Diogo Feio, Markus Ferber, Elisa Ferreira, Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Sven Giegold, Sylvie Goulard, Syed Kamall, Othmar Karas, Wolf Klinz, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Philippe Lamberts, Werner Langen, Astrid Lulling, Ivana Maletić, Marlene Mizzi, Sławomir Nitras, Ivari Padar, Alfredo Pallone, Anni Podimata, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Olle Schmidt, Peter Simon, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, Ivo Strejček, Kay Swinburne, Sampo Terho, Marianne Thyssen, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Pablo Zalba Bidegain |
||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Zdravka Bušić, Ashley Fox, Robert Goebbels, Enrique Guerrero Salom, Olle Ludvigsson, Petru Constantin Luhan, Thomas Mann, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Andreas Schwab, Nils Torvalds |
||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Rita Borsellino |
||||
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law (replacing Council Framework Decision 2000/383/JHA) |
||||
|
References |
COM(2013)0042 – C7-0033/2013 – 2013/0023(COD) |
||||
|
Date submitted to Parliament |
5.2.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
LIBE 12.3.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
ECON 12.3.2013 |
IMCO 12.3.2013 |
|
|
|
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
IMCO 20.3.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Anthea McIntyre 31.1.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
20.2.2013 |
19.6.2013 |
16.9.2013 |
17.12.2013 |
|
|
Date adopted |
17.12.2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
46 0 2 |
|||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Jan Philipp Albrecht, Edit Bauer, Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski, Philip Claeys, Carlos Coelho, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Ioan Enciu, Tanja Fajon, Monika Flašíková Beňová, Kinga Gál, Kinga Göncz, Sylvie Guillaume, Anna Hedh, Salvatore Iacolino, Lívia Járóka, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, Timothy Kirkhope, Baroness Sarah Ludford, Monica Luisa Macovei, Svetoslav Hristov Malinov, Véronique Mathieu Houillon, Anthea McIntyre, Nuno Melo, Roberta Metsola, Claude Moraes, Georgios Papanikolaou, Carmen Romero López, Judith Sargentini, Birgit Sippel, Csaba Sógor, Renate Sommer, Nils Torvalds, Wim van de Camp, Axel Voss, Renate Weber, Auke Zijlstra |
||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Cornelis de Jong, Mariya Gabriel, Ana Gomes, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Jean Lambert, Ulrike Lunacek, Jan Mulder, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Marie-Christine Vergiat, Janusz Wojciechowski |
||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Leonardo Domenici |
||||
|
Date tabled |
10.1.2014 |
||||